Saturday, January 05, 2008

An Open Letter to Sweating Through Fog

I began to leave this as a comment, but it grew too long and I realized that it was not really about you to begin with. It is about a trope I would like to see die, one which no amount of defining, describing, and debunking seems to be able to kill.

I do not kid myself that this will be effective in killing it either. I offer it here only in the hope that it might at least maim it a little.

Here is what is happening. In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth. Despite what they say, no amount of “unpacking”, no amount of insight, no amount of loyal "ally work" can regain your humanity. In their eyes, your privilege means that that - now and forever - you have nothing of value to say. Your experiences are of no consequence. Your views are always empty. While you might be trotted out on occasion as part of a show-trial illustration of remorse, once that is done you need to shut up and move to the background. Once you are privileged, you are free only to agree.

This is a common misconception, I think--and I think you ought to recall here, as I do, that you admit right up front that this isn't a topic with which you are very familiar, nor even one you care to educate yourself about:

I don't really care about feminism, and I could care less what Jessica Valenti or the various WOC bloggers that are involved in this controversy think. What interests me is Hugo's attempt to add his voice to the mix, by trying to convince both sides that there is room for both in his big-tent view of feminism. And I care very much what Hugo thinks, because he is clearly a decent man, and a deep thinker.

See, that's privilege in action: The feelings of white feminist women?--Not important, not worthy of consideration. The feelings of women of color?--Not important, not worthy of consideration. The feelings of a fellow Christian white male?--So important, it's worth it to you to disregard entirely those with whom he engages. Except, of course, to misinterpret what they're trying to say in what has to be one of the most misguided "fiskings" I've seen recently on these internets. To return to your post:

In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away.

As a Christian feminist myself, I do understand the urge to draw parallels between original sin and privilege. They are not dissimilar at first glance, but a better metaphor here would be something more like fish in the sea, or maybe even those dumb old Palmolive dish soap commercials: White privilege is what white people are soaking in. It doesn't make sense to talk about "washing it away" anymore than it makes sense for schools of saltwater fish to "wash away" the sea.

You can't go back and erase the subjugation of indigenous peoples by whites, you can't go back and erase slavery, you can't go back and undo genocide--and neither can I, and neither can Hugo. We exist in an environment that has historically favored white people, and we can't change that history. (The present and the future, now, are another matter.)

Is this so far-fetched, so loony a concept? I don't think that it is. I think it's just acknowledging the reality of existing circumstance.

It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth. Despite what they say, no amount of “unpacking”, no amount of insight, no amount of loyal "ally work" can regain your humanity.

This, this right here, is what I mean when I say "a common misconception"--because this is patently untrue, and yet I hear it all the time. The most recent example I can think of occurred at Brownfemipower's, where a commenter basically asked, what do you want white people to do? Kill themselves? And with regards to the book discussion that doesn't interest you, but on which you nevertheless feel perfectly entitled to comment, that same sentiment has been expressed as, what do you want white feminists to do? Refuse book deals? Stop speaking at all?

This sets up a demonstrably false dichotomy: White people must either obliterate themselves, or content themselves with eternal, subhuman, racist asshole status. Oh, the humanity (that white people are losing, boo-hoo)!

I say this is demonstrably false because the very conversation you reference, this conversation at Hugo's that was so dehumanizing to Hugo, includes arguments made by white people; you cite them frequently throughout your own post. You quote a comment left by Tom of the blog Automatic Preference; Tom is a white man. Your next blockquote is from a comment by Theriomorph; Theriomorph is a white woman. You then cite a comment by R. Mildred; by now you should not be surprised to learn that R. Mildred is a white woman. And if any one of those three white people you quoted has ever felt dehumanized by people of color, I have not heard of it.

But it does happen that the white people you quoted stand in solidarity with women of color, and this brings us to your next point, which, again, I see made by so many, so often, that I beg you not to take this personally:

Once you are privileged, you are free only to agree.

I am free to argue with a neurosurgeon about the best way to repair a cerebral aneurysm. I am free to argue with a homeless person about the best way to stay safe on the streets. I am free to argue with an astronaut about the best way to prepare for outer space travel.

I am free to argue all these topics, but it should come as no surprise when other people, every bit as free as I am, think me a jackass for doing so. I'm not a neurosurgeon, I am not homeless, and I am no astronaut. I don't actually have a shred of authority to invoke in any of these discussions.

And as a white woman, I don't have a shred of authority to invoke in any discussions of racism as it is experienced by people of color, either. If a woman of color says to me, "What you are doing right now is silencing me, what you say here is patronizing, I experience it as dismissive," I am free to argue with her, all right; but Theriomorph or Tom or R. Mildred are also free to say, "Hey, Ilyka, stop that. You're being a racist douchebag. You can do better than this."

Now if I have any sense at all, I'll listen to Tom and R. Mildred and Theriomorph when they say that--but what would be even better than that would be if I resolved to listen to the woman of color who raised that concern with me in the first place. That woman is giving me the invaluable gift of the benefit of the doubt; I owe her, not the other way around! The bare-bones minimum I can do is listen to her with humility, listen to her in love.

Yes, what would be best would be if I did not need to hear criticism of myself solely from other white people in order to understand. What would be even better would be if I saw in people of color the same humanity you so passionately defend provided it belongs to Hugo, and not to those nasty leftist ideologues about whom you have bothered to learn absolutely NOTHING.

(And, Hugo, what would be even better from you would be if you would learn to discern when the devil's whispering in your ear, and stop thanking him for doing that.)

So as a privileged person, Hugo has no basis from which to persuade feminists about anything.

The problem is not that Hugo is a privileged person. The problem is not who or what Hugo IS. The problem lies (pardon the Catholicism a moment) in what Hugo has done, and in what he has failed to do. The problem is that Hugo is not listening. I will note wearily here that this is a longstanding problem, Hugo-wise; and again, one shared by pretty much every white person on the planet; and finally, one that is seldom relieved by enablers whispering, "It's hopeless, you'll never please them, you can't win, just kill yourself, Whitey."

But I forget myself! You don't care about any of that. You only care about Hugo's humanity. You know what, dude? I think Hugo's humanity is going to be just fine, if by "just fine" we mean "expansive and all-consuming to the point no one else can have any." So do not fret. Be of good cheer!

60 comments:

I don't really care about feminism, and I could care less what Jessica Valenti or the various WOC bloggers that are involved in this controversy think….And I care very much what Hugo thinks, because he is clearly a decent man, and a deep thinker.

Okay, that gave me the best laugh I’ve had all day: it is so self-evidently the problem, in a nutshell, and so absurdly lacking in the most basic self-examination to boot that it crosses the line into the ridiculous.

But then this turned it:

Hugo Schwyzer said...

You know, STF, I really really needed to read this. Thank you.

No. That is not what Hugo needs. Hugo himself said what he needs:

The chance is high that I have a blind spot around race and class …. I’ll do some reflecting on that this week.

ilyka, font of generosity with time and patience explaining fundamentals here.

The chance is high that I have a blind spot around race and class …. I’ll do some reflecting on that this week.

Yup! And I'll be over here remaining skeptical that any of this is actually happening.

I'm seeing a phenomenon here I was already fed to the teeth with--I'm seeing the real reason Hugo keeps those MRAs around. It is NOT in the hopes of reaching them or persuading them; it is done in the hopes that when women protest too much, Hugo can get some backup. The MRAs are there to sing him soothing lullabies about how hopeless ally work is.

I am reminded of the conservative woman I saw in a thread at Pgon who reiterated her dislike of @m@nd@, but went on to say that this time, people of color had gone too far! So far that this poor conservative woman was forced, simply FORCED I tell you, to defend @m@nd@.

You know what I call that? A FUCKING ENORMOUS RED FLAG that maybe you're not on the side of angels, after all. This STF post, the same.

Sartre called it mauvaise foi, Nietzsche called it "ressentiment" Sweating through fog calls it "In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth."

Sartre called it mauvaise foi, Nietzsche called it "ressentiment" Sweating through fog calls it "In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth."

I looked and looked and looked for a LOLtheorists tag for this, but nothing came up.

"Blah blah blah, you know the general idea, you don't have to pay any attention to this nonsense, it's all unworthy of consideration, plus you've probably already tuned it out a million times before besides--"

OH HAI, that is like textbook silencing, ya doofus. You're telling the reader to just ignore this shit.

And yet right now I like him just a bit better than Hugo, 'cause hey, at least he's honest about not giving a shit.

Ilyka, I don't know if you read the post I wrote where I put words in Jessica's mouth? I was tempted to do it again, what Hugo should have said to Sweating Through Fog, but I'm glad to see you already have done a great job of explaining everything here!

STF, I recognize that you are trying to lend me moral support, and I thank you. But what you say here is not only contrary to all we know about constructive dialogue, it's also orthogonal to Christianity as it should be practiced. And you say it in such an inflammatory way. What's next, David Duke offering me words of solace? Thanks, but no thanks. Just because some of my putative allies in this argument have sunk to using "what about teh white people" arguments, even if "ironically," does not mean that I am willing to descend to that level. So thanks, but PLEASE STOP HELPING ME.

Oh, and I'd like to apologize to the entire rest of the world for being a simpering little passive-aggressive twit. Been meaning to do that. Keep forgetting.

Ilkya, I've never commented here before, but I want to thank you for writing this. I've been reading your blog for a few weeks now and your posts always challenge me to think about my own status as an ally.

I'm pretty sure that you wrote this post knowing that it would be lost on Sweating Through Fog (as it indeed was) and on Hugo (he actually THANKED Sweating Through Fog for writing that post, WTF?), but it's definitely a help to me and, I'm sure, to many others.

What is the story with the "I don't care" people, who will then demonstrate how much they do care by writing a post and commenting on other blogs that they don't care. Criminy, the disconnect between the actions and the assertion is amazing.I don't get out much, so I don't run in to these folks very often any more, but I am familiar with the routine.

What is the story with the "I don't care" people, who will then demonstrate how much they do care by writing a post and commenting on other blogs that they don't care. Criminy, the disconnect between the actions and the assertion is amazing.

Classic wingnut-style argumentation: First, they're hoping no one notices the disconnect (and too often, no one does). Second, they're claiming don't-care status because if you don't care, you can be presumed to be impartial and objective. It's the old "I've got RATIONALITY on my side" bit, only minus the rationality.

David Horowitz is king of this. "I'm not racist and I don't care how many people say that I am!" Then he goes and writes Hating Whitey and wonders what the fucking problem is. Didn't he just get done telling everyone how much he didn't care?

I'm seeing a phenomenon here I was already fed to the teeth with--I'm seeing the real reason Hugo keeps those MRAs around. It is NOT in the hopes of reaching them or persuading them; it is done in the hopes that when women protest too much, Hugo can get some backup. The MRAs are there to sing him soothing lullabies about how hopeless ally work is.

I am reminded of the conservative woman I saw in a thread at Pgon who reiterated her dislike of @m@nd@, but went on to say that this time, people of color had gone too far! So far that this poor conservative woman was forced, simply FORCED I tell you, to defend @m@nd@.

Yup.

And yeah, you know, it did all come out in the open, didn't it.

Narcissistic sociopathology, wingnuttery, supremacy.

Once he said the word 'narcissist,' I made the decision not to engage with Hugo directly anymore. Been there done that, bled the cost. I finally 'got' who I was talking to, and why it wasn't computing.

But ooo, the temptation to start pointing and shouting 'look who the allies are, for fuck's sake' in that thread.

At least now I know why I had such a searing need for a searing shower.

So I go into the kitchen to make myself a breakfast burrito (what? I like food) because I've had too much coffee this morning and I realize I'm sitting her serial-commenting on my own blog. That's never healthy! Worse, the whole time I'm in the kitchen, I'm puzzling this shell game stuff out--I'm thinking, "Okay, but no one really wants to play shell games. Hard to get the family together for a nice shell game. So should it be more like Badminton or Monopoly or what? Would it make a good third-person shooter?" You understand--I can't stop thinking about the best way to make the "privilege game" a REAL GAME, because I'm insane.

And I get back only to find that you've (1) totally solved this problem but also (2) killed me STONE DEAD.

Once he said the word 'narcissist,' I made the decision not to engage with Hugo directly anymore. Been there done that, bled the cost. I finally 'got' who I was talking to, and why it wasn't computing.

I have to disappoint on my take on the alternate universe Hugo, but Chris did such a nice job, I don't think I could beat that anyway.

I found out today that one of my uncles died yesterday. I wasn't really all that close to him, but he was my mother's brother and she was very close to him. It was one of my cousins who told me. I don't think my mom can talk on the phone yet because I've been calling and she isn't answering.

Okay, you know - there are people running all over the internet now using the terms 'purist' and 'popularizer' to describe themselves or others in re: feminism.

Gonna guess that you went back over to that thread same as I did and saw the comment from Judy?

It would be a decent conversation, I guess, were it not for the implied slight against the purists, the own-fork bringers, that always seems to come up in these discussions, and hell no that's not limited to environmentalists.

It would also be a decent conversation if it weren't, in this particular instance, a . . . hmm, what adjectives haven't we used yet? Oh, hell, let's just recycle 'em: Manipulative, dismissive, underhanded tactic to reframe a preexisting discussion WHICH WAS NOT ABOUT POPULARISM VERSUS PURISM, AT ALL.

So if someone--let's call that someone NotHugo--wants to have a chat about popularists and purists that is unrelated to your post or to anyone's damn book deals, I might be interested in it. And then again, I might be just a teensy bit cynical about how the whole thing was going to turn out, in light of recent events.

You know what's funny? Conservatives do the opposite of this. It's the purists, the extremists, who have the most pull. Of course they don't think so, because they don't get what they want instantly, immediately, or sometimes at all. But on the right, if you want to know what's coming down the pike, you keep an eye on the so-called purists, because what they want is where things are heading, no matter what any dim-bulb moderate dupes like, uh, this one woman I used to be--I mean know, this one woman I used to know!--think is going on.

But for some reason there are like all these lefties who think Republican Lite is the way to go and I don't know, I don't get it. You don't win tug-of-wars, culture wars, or political battles by yielding.

But for some reason there are like all these lefties who think Republican Lite is the way to go and I don't know, I don't get it. You don't win tug-of-wars, culture wars, or political battles by yielding.

Yes, exactly. You win by overwhelming force or by changing the context, not just rolling over. I know which one I prefer: the transformative.

That's how you get your 'big tent' to really mean something - by synthesizing and transforming and integrating; by changing the context of the struggle. Not by trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, or insisting that only things (round) peglike need apply.

But, of course, real progress, real transformation, real change means real work. You can't just sit there and keep doing the same things over and over again, working within the same narrow paradigm... you have to really sit there and think about what kind of changes need to be made, and what kind of solutions will really benefit everyone involved. Maybe we shouldn't be talking about fitting things into holes at all - maybe we should be talking about piles, or log cabins, or rings. And if what we need is different enough, then we have to build it.

Better a clown than a lying defensive weasel with hir head up hir ass. The nice thing about the great big clown wig is the way it helps reduce the incidence of head-up-ass syndrome 'cause it won't fucking fit.

Read the entire thread and the comments and am impressed, if somewhat confused. I'll admit that Hugo's distinction between purists and populists made sense to me, but I didn't really see any slighting of purists in what he wrote. The question I've been grappling with throughout the years is how academic feminism can be brought to bear actual social/ political results, such as increased funding for domestic violence shelters, literacy for immigrant women, etc. (real issues that we have here in southern California). In other words, how do you translate something like Judith Butler's work into practice for community activism (which, I think, Hugo is really trying to get at)?